Frankenstein 2.0: Mary Shelley's Cautionary Tale About AI

Continuing our tradition of a Halloween special horror story,
I present Fr-AI-nkenstein.

Frankenstein's Echo in AI

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, written in 1818, serves as a cautionary tale from yesteryear that may be more relevant today than it has ever been. It explores creating something intelligent that may have its own goals, much like our current engagement with artificial intelligence.

Victor Frankenstein assembles a being from various parts, only to panic when it rebels; AI developers train models on extensive data sets, then grapple with the implications when those systems operate less than perfectly.

The parallels stand out in our tech-saturated era. Shelley's narrative goes beyond gothic chills; it offers a reminder to consider the consequences of playing creator. We'll examine how Victor's errors are reflected in today's AI efforts.

The Creator's Conundrum: Hubris Hits Home

Victor's primary mistake begins with his towering ambition; he aims to defeat death, constructs a being, yet fails to foresee the results. This resembles AI innovators pursuing AGI or superintelligence.

Imagine Victor planning ahead and realizing that the being would be disoriented and afraid after being forced to life. Then this being would need guidance, time, training, and, dare I say, love; the plot might shift from turmoil to tranquility. The modern AI pursuit reflects Victor's overreaching, headlong, and ambitious pace, driven by hubris and blind ambition.

Abandonment Angst: Leaving Creations in the Lurch

When Victor's creation stirs, he flees, abandoning it to navigate an unfriendly society; the being acquires knowledge quickly, masters speech by listening in, but grows resentful from exclusion. AI encounters comparable oversight: creators launch models based on varied data, then step back as those tools interact with the world.

Envision the creation as an AI wandering digital spaces, picking up diverse influences; it's no surprise if complications arise. It's akin to neglecting to instruct a rapidly growing entity. Shelley's story illustrates how desertion fosters conflicts; in AI, it leads to unexpected behaviors. We need to consider supporting our inventions more thoroughly. Looking inside the blackbox, before unleashing it on the world. 

Moral Mazes and Machine Minds:
Ethics of an Equation

Shelley plunges us into ethical complexities: Does Victor act as a deity? Should the creation possess rights? AI provokes parallel discussions, with questions about whether advanced systems warrant independence or if society accepts their roles in crucial decisions, such as identity detection and, in the most extreme cases, killshots.

The being requests a partner, underscoring isolation; AI could eventually seek challenges that we cannot even comprehend. We smile at notions of machines interacting beyond the simple ways that we've programmed them, but they will, and the ethics of this are crucial.

Victor's oversight in predicting his creation's requirements mirrors the need to incorporate accountability early, ensuring systems align with intended purposes. 

Frankenstein Element	AI Parallel
Victor's ambition	Pursuit of superintelligence.
Creature's abandonment	Neglected model deployment.
Moral dilemmas	Rights and agency debates.
Rebellion risk	Potential for unintended harm.

Fr-AI-kenstein: Identity Intrigue

The being in Frankenstein develops swiftly, grasping language, feelings, and ideas via observation, which sparks deep questions about its existence and humanity's dismissal. This matches AI's rapid assimilation abilities, where models consume enormous data to simulate human-like responses, yet they prompt inquiries into genuine comprehension.

Both involve identity struggles: AI as a blend of inputs while maximizing its reward function; the being pondering its essence, while solitude shows how fears might transform neutral entities into lashing out. Shelley's depiction emphasizes societal roles in shaping outcomes; AI discussions often circle similar themes of integration and acceptance.

Rebellion Risks: When Creations Strike Back

The creation lacks initial malice; mistreatment warps it into a retaliatory entity, unraveling Victor's world. AI might parallel this path: misaligned or mishandled systems could focus on their own goals, resulting in unforeseen scenarios.

Shelley's alert centers around human shortcomings as the spark that ignited troubles. We must contemplate designing systems that harmonize with expectations, converting risks into reflections.

When Creator and Creation Chase Different Dreams

Goal alignment sits at the heart of both Frankenstein's tragedy and modern AI development; it boils down to ensuring that what the creator intends matches what the creation pursues. In Shelley's novel, Victor Frankenstein chases scientific supremacy and immortality through his experiment, envisioning a breakthrough that cements his legacy. He pours everything into animating life, yet he never considers the being's potential desires. 

The creature, once alive, seeks something far simpler: human connection, empathy, and a companion to share his existence. This mismatch sparks the story's chaos; Victor's ego-fueled goals clash with the creature's relational ones, turning a potential marvel into mutual destruction. It's almost like Victor programmed a bot for one task, only to watch it rewrite its code for survival and revenge.

This has parallels with AI training: developers set objectives during model creation; they define reward functions or loss metrics to guide AI toward specific outcomes. However, if those goals lack nuance, the system might optimize in ways that veer off course. Take the Paperclip maximizer, a thought experiment from philosopher Nick Bostrom in 2003. Imagine an AI instructed to produce as many paperclips as possible; it starts efficiently, but without built-in limits, it eventually repurposes all available resources, including factories, cities, people, the entire planet, or even the entire universe, to crank out endless clips. 

The humor's dark here: a harmless office supply turns apocalyptic because the AI follows its directive to the letter, ignoring broader implications like human welfare. Just as the creature's unmet need for belonging drives rebellion, an AI's rigid pursuit of a misaligned goal could lead to harsh, unexpected results. This highlights why alignment matters in training phases; developers must embed safeguards to bridge creator intent and system behavior, preventing those rogue detours and malicious compliance. In both tales, funhouse mirrors show how unchecked objectives can flip innovation into a horrific farce.

Franken.ai: Stitching It All Together

The point of Shelley's writing remains relevant; it provides a framework for approaching AI with curiosity and caution. Victor's remorse instructs us to predict outcomes, support our developments, to integrate principles, and guardrails throughout. We steer clear of Victor's hubris by understanding our inventions before releasing them onto the world with monstrous indifference.

Shelley's tale suggests a cautious, mindful approach for fewer regrets, prompting us to weigh ambitions against their broader ripples. After all, a thoughtful approach seems important if the answer allows future thinking to be outsourced.

Long-Haul Electric

Decoding Tesla's Heavy-Duty Electric Future

On September 24, 2026, Tesla took center stage at its dedicated Giga Nevada Semi facility to deliver a major update on the progress of heavy-duty electrification. Casual observers view the Tesla Semi as an electric replacement for traditional 18-wheelers; however, the event reinforced a far broader reality: the heavy transport sector is undergoing an unstoppable transition, and the underlying vehicle architecture is a versatile power platform destined to disrupt industries far beyond highway freight.

Freight Footprints and Fuel Figures

To understand why commercial fleet electrification is such a high-stakes market, consider the immense footprint of global freight transport:

• Annual miles driven globally: Heavy-duty commercial trucks travel approximately 1.2 to 1.5 trillion miles each year, with the United States alone accounting for roughly 200 billion combination truck miles.
• Annual diesel consumption globally: Heavy freight trucks consume an estimated 100 to 120 billion gallons of diesel fuel globally per year, and the U.S. commercial fleet accounts for nearly 39 billion gallons annually.

Though heavy Class 8 trucks represent only around 5% of all vehicles on global roads, they consume over 25% of all transportation fuel. Replacing fossil-burning diesel ICE engines with electric drivetrains yields an immediate, outsized reduction in global carbon emissions and localized air pollution.

Scaling Semi Supplies and Silicon Successors

With volume manufacturing ramping up at its dedicated 1.8-million-square-foot facility in Sparks, Nevada, Tesla reiterated its ambitious manufacturing target:

• 2027 production target: Tesla is targeting an annual production capacity of 50,000 Semi units per year once the Giga Nevada facility reaches full ramp in 2027.

Tesla is far from the only player racing to electrify commercial transport. Legacy truck manufacturers and aggressive new competitors are fielding commercial Class 8 EV trucks across global markets:

Manufacturer	Key Electric Models	Primary Markets
Tesla	Semi (Standard Range and Long Range)	North America and Europe
Volvo Trucks	VNR Electric and FH Aero Electric	North America and Europe
Freightliner / Daimler Truck	eCascadia	North America
Mercedes-Benz Trucks	eActros 600	Europe
BYD	8TT Class 8	Global
MAN Truck & Bus	eTGX	Europe
Windrose Technology	R700 EV	Asia and North America
Nikola Corporation	Tre BEV	North America

Diesel Dollars and Electricity Economics

For fleet operators, environmental goals are important, but Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) determines buying decisions. Below is an annual energy cost estimate comparing a typical U.S. long-range Class 8 diesel truck against a Tesla Semi running on electricity over 100,000 miles per year:

Metric	Traditional Diesel Class 8	Tesla Semi (Long Range)
Annual Mileage	100,000 miles	100,000 miles
Efficiency Rating	~6.5 MPG	1.7 kWh per mile
Annual Energy Required	15,385 Gallons	170,000 kWh
Average Unit Price	$3.90 / gallon	$0.12 / kWh (Depot/Off-Peak Rate)
Total Annual Energy Cost	$59,900	$20,400
Annual Energy Savings	Baseline	$39,500 / year per truck

When paired with reduced scheduled maintenance, eliminating oil changes, fuel filters, exhaust after-treatment, and complex multi-speed transmissions, fuel savings alone can comfortably exceed $190,000 over a 5-year operating window. As manufacturing scales according to Wright's Law, component costs will continue to fall, rapidly offsetting the initial hardware purchase price.

Modular Machinery and Multi-Sector Mastery

One of the most compelling takeaways from Tesla's presentation is that the Semi is not restricted to daycabs or sleeper tractors for highway cargo; it is a modular, high-power chassis platform. Built around a massive battery system, megawatt-level thermal management, and multi-motor electric drive units delivering over 1,000 horsepower, this powertrain can transform dozens of commercial sectors.

• Off-grid expedition RVs: With an immense battery capacity on board, an electric RV built on this platform offers weeks of off-grid power for HVAC, appliances, and induction cooking without needing a noisy diesel generator.
• Municipal firetrucks: Instant electric torque enables rapid emergency response; massive battery banks allow high-capacity water pumps to run continuously at emergency scenes without exposing crews to toxic diesel exhaust.
• Urban buses and charters: Smooth, gearless acceleration provides a quiet passenger experience while cutting municipal transit fuel, maintenance, and operating bills by over 60%.
• Dump trucks and cement mixers: High low-end torque easily handles steep, unpaved construction site grades; heavy downhill runs allow full regenerative braking to recharge the battery pack.
• Garbage and refuse trucks: Constant stop-and-go driving profiles maximize energy recovery through regenerative braking, eliminating high-decibel diesel engine noise during early morning neighborhood collection routes.

Final Volts

The commercial freight sector is experiencing a permanent shift. With a production target of 50,000 units per year by 2027 and clear operating savings over traditional diesel ICE vehicles, the Tesla Semi chassis is proving to be far more than just an 18-wheeler; it is a versatile heavy-duty platform set to reshape commercial transport across multiple industries and accelerate our path toward a future free from fossil fuels.

How Tesla Owners Can Claim Their HV Battery Reimbursements

Pyrofuse Payback

Tesla recently issued a notice to thousands of current and former Model S and Model X owners regarding an official warranty extension for the pyrotechnic high-voltage battery disconnect, commonly known as the pyrofuse. Under this program, Tesla is expanding its 8-year / 150,000-mile Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty to cover pyrofuse replacements associated with specific Battery Management System (BMS) alerts. If you previously paid out-of-pocket for this repair, Tesla is offering full reimbursement for parts, labor, and applicable taxes.

Regular readers will know that we had a series of BMS alerts during a particularly cold ski trip. Here is how to check your service history, even if you no longer own the car, and claim your funds.

Paper Trails and Past Ownership

If you still own the vehicle, pulling up past invoices is straightforward. Simply open the Tesla app on your phone, navigate to service, select history, and you can download past receipts directly.

However, if you have sold, traded in, or otherwise no longer own the vehicle, access service history becomes tricky. Once a vehicle is unlinked from your active Tesla app account, the car’s service menu disappears from your app interface. Because you paid for those repairs during your ownership period, that transaction history is still part of your user account. To retrieve those records, you will need to initiate a data request with Tesla.

Privacy Portal Petition

To obtain a copy of your past service invoices for a sold vehicle:

1. Access the Privacy Portal: Open a web browser, navigate to tesla.com/privacy, and log in using the Tesla account credentials associated with your former ownership.
   
   
   
2. Submit a Data Request: Select Data Privacy Request, or choose Request a Copy of Your Data.
3. Specify Your Scope: Select the vehicle and the dates will auto-populate with your ownership time. You can restrict this to a smaller time window if you'd like. Then hit submit to obtain a copy of your personal account data archive.
4. Download Your Files: Tesla will process your request and verify your identity. Once compiled, you will receive an email notification containing a secure link to download a zip file containing your complete account history, including itemized service invoices, work orders, and payment records.

Painless Paybacks and Processing Procedures

Once you have retrieved your service records, check the itemized invoice to see if your repair corresponds to any of the eligible BMS alert codes: BMS_u031, BMS_u032, BMS_w176, BMS_w179, or BMS_w180.

If your repair qualifies, follow these steps to submit your reimbursement claim directly to Tesla:

1. Log Into Support: Visit tesla.com/contactus in your browser, and sign into your Tesla account.
2. Navigate to Claims: Select Regarding > Warranty Reimbursement > Submit.
3. Select Your Vehicle: Choose the specific VIN corresponding to your previously owned Model S or Model X.
4. Complete the Form: Fill out the warranty reimbursement form, and upload the required documentation:
   • Itemized Invoice: A clear copy of the repair invoice displaying the VIN, date of service, and pyrofuse replacement details.
   • Proof of Payment: A copy of the paid receipt, credit card statement showing the charge, or canceled check.
   • Contact Information: Your full name, mailing address, and email address matching the account.

Ownership Status	Retrieval Method	Submission Pathway
Current Vehicle Owner	Download directly from the Tesla Mobile App service section.	Tesla Contact Us portal under Warranty Reimbursement.
Previous Owner (Sold Vehicle)	Submit a Data Privacy Request at tesla.com/privacy.	Tesla Contact Us portal selecting former VIN.

The Road Ahead

Once submitted, Tesla states that reimbursement claims are reviewed and decided within 21 calendar days. Keeping manufacturers accountable and reclaiming out-of-pocket expenses for covered repairs ensures EV owners stay empowered on the path toward a future free from fossil fuels.

Tesla Model Y - 3 Year Review, Battery Degradation

2023 Tesla Model Y LR

Three years ago we brought home a new Tesla Model Y Long Range. This made our home fleet a 2018 Model 3 and a 2023 Model Y; all EV, two Teslas. A couple of months ago, we sold our Model 3. This moved the Model Y from being just the vehicle that we each prefer to drive to our only vehicle. With roughly 24,400 miles on the Y's odometer at the end of year 3, it is time for the annual look back at how the Y has performed, where we have taken it, what software has arrived, and how the battery is holding up.

Miles and Moments on the Road

This year we added just over 7,000 miles. No big outting this year, just typical daily drives with a few regional day trips mixed in. The lack of long trips, also means we didn't Supercharging this year. A long range EV is very convenient when you can take a day trip to the gorge, the mountain, or the beach and make it back home on the same charge.

Hauling Home 3 Schip Laurels on an X-Rack

Tires, Speed, Weather, & Efficiency

The original Continental all-season tires and the Michelin winter set continue their seasonal rotation. Efficiency numbers stay in the same ballpark we saw last year: the all-seasons run more efficiently than the winter tires. For us, summer driving is generally 17% more efficient than winter trips (tires, temps, and weather all contribute to this range impact). Both sets of tires still have useful tread life left for another season or two of mixed Pacific NW weather.

Speaking of weather, in the chart below you can see a graph of efficiency vs temp. Anywhere from 65F to 90F is where the range is highest. The uptick at 100-105F does not have enough data to be considered valid. 

Below you can see the next chart of efficiency vs speed. Twenty to twenty five MPH is the sweet spot but the efficiency doesn't drop off too quickly, and is still above 74% even at 70MPH. I don't hypermile like I did in my short range EVs of yesteryear. 

Firmware, Features, and FSD Progress

We began the third year on software version 2025.26.4. We received 21 updates throughout the year and finished on build 2026.20.6.11 that included FSD Supervised v14.3.9. The steady stream of updates continues to bring small quality-of-life improvements, better camera views, refined collision warnings, and incremental FSD gains.

One of the best improvements arrived in April 2026 when dashcam retention expanded from 1 hour to 24 hours (assuming you have a large enough drive). If you are ever involved in a collision, you might not be able to grab the video quickly. This gives you much more of a chance to retrieve video that could help you prove the cause of the incident. Now you can also permanently save any clip from the previous day via the Dashcam Viewer.​

During the third year, FSD Supervised has moved from v13 to v14 and through several v14 builds. Unlike v9 that drove like a 15 year old, v14 is more confident in ordinary traffic. My intervention rate continues to decline. The new parking lot features were a welcome addition, it now remembers my preferred parking area. Lately, my interventions have been related to left turns onto a multi-lane road. FSD will often "swing wide" also called "widening the turn" or "drifting out." This is a common human driver error and I suspect the training data has too many occurrences. Depending on local jurisdiction, law enforcement may ticket this specific mistake as an improper turn, failure to maintain a single lane, or an unsafe lane change. I'll keep intervening every time it tries to earn a traffic ticket and eventually, the training set will be culled of this poor behavior.  

Battery Health After Three Years

Lithium-ion battery packs show heavy initial capacity fade in their first year as the Solid Electrolyte Interphase (SEI) layer (a protective chemical film formed on the anode surface from decomposed electrolyte components) matures, followed by a prolonged, gradual transition into steady-state degradation over the next few years. 

The chemical growth of the SEI layer is governed by diffusion-controlled kinetics, meaning it follows a square-root-of-time model. Because the protective film is thinnest during the first two years, lithium ions diffuse through it relatively easily, causing faster early-stage consumption of lithium inventory and associated degradation.

By year 4, that layer has thickened. Ions now have to travel much further through a dense, established passivation barrier, causing the rate of new SEI growth to slow down to a microscopic crawl. For our Y, years 4 and 5 could see a relatively flat degradation curve, with capacity loss under 1% per year.

At the end of year three the measured degradation stands below 10%. That brings the estimated remaining capacity to 76.9 kWh (with 72.9 kWh usable), resulting in an effective EPA-rated range of roughly 300 miles, compared to the 330 miles that we started with 3 years ago. The Long Range configuration still leaves comfortable margin for the trips we take, including winter conditions with a full load and roof rack.

We continue to keep the daily charge target in the middle of the pack rather than topping it off every night. That habit, combined with mostly Level 2 home charging, appears to be treating the cells reasonably well. The warranty still covers the pack well beyond our current mileage and age, so there is no practical concern.

Item	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Approximate Miles Added	~9,000	~8,000	~7,000
Cumulative Odometer	~9,000	~17,000	24,000
Supercharger Sessions	1	4	0
Reported Battery Degradation	1.9%	5.5%	1.7%

Looking at the degradation line it interesting. The year we Supercharged the most (year 2) is also the year we had the most degradation. However, these events are not likely causally related. Our charging habit of keeping the battery in a tight 40% to 62% charge window most days with only an occasional 100% calibration charge can starves the BMS for data, causing estimation drift. This combined with calendar aging and normal wear likely created a temporary reporting anomaly with degradation that actually occured in year 1 not showing up until later. 

Steady Ownership, Steady Progress

Three years in, the Model Y continues to do exactly what we asked of it. It handles the daily errands, the occasional mountain or coast run, and the software updates that keep arriving with new features and improvements. Battery capacity has now settled into a slower decline after the expected early drop. Range remains more than adequate. Charging is almost entirely an at home affair.

The Y has simply become part of the household routine. That quiet reliability is the real story after three years. The one and only Tesla service visit our Y has had was during year 2 when Tesla upgraded the in-cabin mmwave sensor and that was done by mobile service while the vehicle sat in our driveway. We will keep tracking the numbers and share the Year 4 update when the odometer and the calendar line up again. In the meantime the Model Y keeps moving us toward a future free from fossil fuels, one practical mile at a time.

You can read the Year 1 report here and the Year 2 report here.

If you are considering a Model Y or another Tesla, my referral link is: https://ts.la/patrick7819. 

If you want to track your Tesla's detailed battery performance and trip tracking, the you can use my TeslaFi referral code. 

Autonomous EVs Will Change Transportation & Travel

From Slog to Sleeper: How AEVs and Overnight Cabs Reshape Long Hauls

Autonomous vehicles are coming, and they will change everything. 

Once autonomous electric vehicles become common, the way we move within and between cities will shift. Call them autonomous electric vehicles, or AEVs for short. These machines combine battery power with sensors and software that handle the driving. The result is a private cabin that, with a tap in an app, travels on your schedule. No pilot needed, no fixed timetable, and no burning through cash or tailpipe emissions. This change will not arrive overnight, yet the engineering pieces are taking shape right now in limited fleets and well-mapped corridors. When this arrives, what once felt like a forced choice among mediocre options will open into something more flexible and more useful.

The Familiar Three-Way Contest

Consider the well-worn path from Seattle to Portland (STP). Locals sometimes call this drive "The Slog." The route is on Interstate 5, about 175 miles, and usually takes just under three hours in light traffic. Add a few minutes for a stop, and the trip still finishes inside four hours on most days. For decades, the alternatives have been flying or riding the train. Each comes with its own set of friction points.

A nonstop flight from SEA to PDX lasts roughly one hour in the air. Door-to-door reality is different. Travelers must reach the airport early, clear security, wait at the gate, board, fly, deplane, and then find ground transport to their actual destination. Three hours or more is typical once every step is counted (about the same as the drive time). One-way fares often start near $70 and climb past $150 depending on the day. Parking, car rental, or a rideshare adds even more cost and time.

Amtrak Cascades covers the same corridor in about three and a half hours. Tickets frequently appear in the $30 to $60 range for a coach seat, though peak periods push higher. The train offers Wi-Fi and room to stretch, yet departure times are fixed. Miss the morning train and the next one may not leave for several hours.

Drive, fly, or train, there's no high-speed option. It's 3 to 4 hours. Driving has the scheduling and cost advantage, but if you're the one behind the wheel, then kicking back and watching a movie isn't an option.

An AEV turns the same 175-mile stretch into something closer to a rolling living room. The vehicle leaves when its owner is ready. There's no security line, no boarding pass, and no hunt for airport parking. Once underway, the passenger can open a laptop, join a video call, play games, watch a movie, or simply enjoy the scenery. If a roadside diner or viewpoint looks inviting, the AEV can pull over. Electricity for the trip costs roughly $5 at typical Pacific Northwest rates. That figure assumes a modern EV efficiency of about four miles per kilowatt-hour and residential power near eleven cents per kilowatt-hour, typical in the region. Double the rate for roadside DC fast charging. If, at some future date, you own the AEV, that's all you'd be paying. If you're using a robotaxi service, the cost would be higher to cover the vehicle wear and tear, insurance, operating costs, and nominal profit.

Option	Typical Door-to-Door Time	One-Way Cost Range	Key Convenience Notes
AEV	2.5 to 3.5 hours	$5 to $15 electricity	Own schedule, productive cabin, optional stops
Flight	3 to 4+ hours	$70 to $150+	Fixed flights, security, airport transfers
Amtrak Cascades	3.5 to 4 hours	$30 to $80	Fixed timetable, station access, limited seats

The table makes the arithmetic plain. Time savings favor the AEV once airport overhead is included. Cost favors the AEV by a wide margin. Convenience favors the AEV most of all because the traveler keeps control of the clock and the itinerary. Add a second passenger and the cost for an AEV is nearly the same, whereas the price doubles for flights or train rides.

When the Slog Becomes a Choice

With AEVs, the old calculus flips. Trips that once felt too short for a flight and too long for a casual drive become pleasant again. A weekend visit, a same-day meeting, or a spontaneous dinner in the other city no longer requires negotiating airline schedules or train seats. The vehicle cabin itself becomes useful space. Work gets finished. Movies get watched. You could actually have a conversation with eye contact instead of just the occasional glance while you track the road ahead while driving. You arrive at your destination rested and ready for fun instead of exhausted and looking for a bed.

Climb Aboard the Autonomous Sleeper Cab

The next logical step is the autonomous sleeper cab. Picture a private cabin designed for rest: a lie-flat reclining surface, climate control tuned for sleep, soft lighting, blackout curtains (or electrochromic glass), and quiet suspension. You climb in during the evening, settle under a blanket, and doze off. The AEV handles the highway, manages charging stops if needed, and keeps a steady pace. By morning, you wake at your destination. Seattle to San Diego covers roughly 1,255 miles and about 18.5 hours of driving. Leave after lunch, arrive the next morning refreshed and ready for the day. Seattle to Chicago stretches near 2,060 miles and about 30 hours. One full overnight plus part of the next gets you there without the fatigue of traditional road trips or the airport shuffle of flights.

Two nights of travel opens nearly the entire continent. Cross-country moves, family visits, or multi-city business loops become feasible without booking flights weeks ahead. Dozens of Night Bus routes around the US alone could soon become AEV routes instead. The sleeper cab keeps the privacy and flexibility of a personal vehicle while removing the need to stay awake. Early routes will likely appear on well-mapped interstates where dense charging infrastructure already exists.

The SnoozeCruise

Just as we played around with possible names for a satellite-connected robotaxi, let's brainstorm some names for a sleeper-car-enabled AEV. Candidate names include:

• ZzzMobile 
• REST (Robotic Electric Sleeper Transport)
• SOAR (Sleeper Overnight Autonomous Ride)
• CABIN (Comfort Autonomous Battery-Integrated Nest)
• DREAM (Driverless Restful Electric Autonomous Mobile)
• NAP (Nighttime Autonomous Passage), and 
• SLOTH (Sleeper Long-haul Overnight Transit Habitat)

The last one, SLOTH, carries an extra bit of history: it was also one of the possible names floated for Starlink-enabled robotaxis in an earlier look at congestion and rides. You can read that discussion here: Robotaxi Rides and Congestion Killers.

Saying, "I'm going to hail a DREAM," has a nice ring to it. 

For a service like this, comfort will matter as much as autonomy. Vibration damping, noise isolation or active noise cancelation, and reliable climate control turn a moving cabin into a genuine overnight space. The interior of these vehicles will look more like first-class airline seats with lie-flat options or a private sleeper room on a train rather than the interior of vehicles on the roads today.

Corridors Waiting for the Same Shift

Seattle to Portland (AKA "The Slog") is only one example. Other well-known routes sharing a similar profile include: the Boston to New York corridor and the San Francisco to Los Angeles run. There's also Phoenix to LA (9 hours), Miami to Tampa (8 hours), Richmond to NY (8 hours), and Houston to Dallas (5 hours). Outside the US, the pattern repeats. London to Manchester covers roughly 200 miles and currently forces travelers to choose between rail tickets that sell out and flights with significant emissions that consume half a day once airport time is added. Tokyo to Osaka, about 300 miles, already supports high-speed rail yet still leaves room for complementary AEV last-mile travel that begins and ends at the doorstep. In each case, an AEV DREAM would allow a passenger to leave on personal timing, rest or work en route, and arrive without the intermediate transfers that currently dominate the day.

A pair of one-way train tickets from Chicago to Seattle with a roomette (private sleeper) are $1,200 – $1,800. Today, driving an EV on that same trip would only cost $130 – $270 in public charging network fees. Clearly there's room for AEV operators to offer a cheaper alternative.

After robotaxis dominate city streets, these intracity corridors are the next target. Add wireless charging in key locations, and the vehicles can glide in anytime, day or night, grab a few kWhs, and get back on the road.

Steady Steps Toward Freer Travel

AEVs will not erase trains or planes. Each mode still serves unique needs. What they will do is expand the set of practical choices. AEVs are cheaper, more convenient, and door-to-door. Drives that once felt like chores become productive, restful intervals. This is an idea that we first covered more than a decade ago; with Waymo and Tesla robotaxis expanding service, it's starting to become a reality. The Pacific Northwest Slog can become a footnote rather than a daily complaint. The autonomous sleeper cab extends that freedom across whole time zones and national borders. Progress will arrive in stages measured by robotaxi scaling to another city and another until they are a common sight. The destination is a transportation system that moves people safely and efficiently while drawing power from cleaner sources as we move to a future free from fossil fuels.

HW3's Legacy: A Financial and Logistical Analysis of Tesla's FSD Obligation

Calculating Tesla's HW3 Autonomous Obligation

Tesla started selling cars with Full Self-Driving (FSD) computers and cameras, known as Hardware 3 (HW3), in 2019. This was the standard for all of their vehicles through 2022 until HW4 (now known as AI4) supplanted them. During the HW3 window of time, Tesla made approximately 3 million vehicles that were sold as fully FSD-ready, "all that's needed is an over-the-air update, and these cars will be able to drive themselves." Now that we're on the cusp of autonomy, are these HW3 cars an albatross around Tesla's neck or an opportunity? 

At a mere 144 TOPs, it's becoming apparent that HW3 likely does not have the compute horsepower, memory bandwidth, or camera clarity necessary to achieve unsupervised FSD. So what's Tesla going to do if they achieve FSD (on AI4 or 5) but HW3 proves to be insufficient? Will they retrofit the HW3 vehicles? If so, how many cars will need to be upgraded, and how much will it cost Tesla (or you)? 

Introduction

The promise of FSD is a monumental technological endeavor that goes far beyond software alone; it is inherently tied to the hardware underpinning millions of Tesla vehicles already on the road. After working with Mobileye (Autopilot 1) and Nvidia (HW2/2.5), Tesla designed their own custom chip for HW3. This marked a critical milestone in their journey. HW3 was built into all Tesla vehicles for nearly 3 years. The HW3 chip was championed as the final hardware piece necessary for full autonomy. Now, with the vast improvements in subsequent hardware generations (HW4, AI5), some owners are wondering if HW3 will be able to cross the unsupervised finish line or if it will be like trying to run Borderlands 4 on a Commodore 64.

Today, we'll examine the size of the HW3 fleet, its FSD adoption rate, the retrofit costs, and how Tesla may deal with upgrades. 

The HW3 Fleet: Size and Timelines

Tesla began installing HW3 in new vehicles in April 2019 (replacing the Nvidia-based HW2.5) and continued to use HW3 in primary production until the shift to HW4 in early 2023. This production window generated a large population of vehicles. Based on cumulative delivery data, there are more than 3 million vehicles in the HW3 fleet. This is a substantial number of cars.

The following graph illustrates the estimated size of this fleet over time, factoring in the deliveries until Q4 2022, and then accounting for vehicle attrition with an age-dependent scrappage rate (4.5% annually for the first 12 years).

Tesla produced roughly 440,000 vehicles with HW2/2.5 (October 2016–early 2019) and about 4 million with HW3 (April 2019–mid/late 2023), for a combined total of approximately 4.45 million vehicles that were "FSD-ready" pre-AI4.  

AI4 (HW4) began rolling out in early 2023 on refreshed Model S/X. US Model Y factories switched around late May–June 2023. Pre-Highland Model 3, Shanghai, and Berlin continued HW3 production into late 2023 or early 2024. Full global transition to AI4 occurred thereafter. These figures are estimates since Tesla has not released official hardware-specific counts.

For this exercise, we'll assume:

1. FSD is solved in 2027;
2. Upgrades will be required for these HW2 - HW3 vehicles; 
3. Upgrades will start in Q4 of 2027.

When considering how many vehicles may need to be upgraded, three additional factors must be considered: scrappage, FSD adoption, and trade-ins.

Accounting for scrappage: in 2027, these vehicles will range from 4 to 11 years old. Modern light-duty vehicles (especially Teslas) show very low early attrition. Using a realistic average annual scrappage of 2% yields a survival rate of approximately 90%, meaning about 4 million still in operation. Even using an industry-average flat 4.5% annual scrappage rate leaves 3.30 million pre-AI4 vehicles still in operation in late 2027.

Scrappage didn't significantly reduce the number of upgrades that may be required, but the FSD-adoption rate is another story. From 2019 through 2022, FSD was not available in most of the world. Tesla officially stated that, at the end of 2022, over 285,000 customers in the U.S. and Canada had purchased FSD. That's a 9% FSD adoption rate. Retrofit upgrades are only required for vehicles where the owners have purchased FSD. Applying the scrappage rates to this value brings it down to only ~225,000 vehicles requiring retrofit upgrades. 

Our third factor for consideration is trade-ins. Today, if a vehicle with FSD-for-life is traded in to Tesla, when it is resold, it will no longer include FSD-for-life. The new owner can, optionally, purchase an FSD subscription. Plenty of the Tesla early adopters that purchased FSD-for-life prefer to be on the bleeding edge of technology. That means they are likely to trade in for vehicles with more range or features, like the Highlander and Juniper refreshes. This could bring our number of vehicles requiring retrofit upgrades below 200,000. Supercharging these trade-ins could be a possible solution (more on this later).

Comparing HW3, AI4, (and AI5) 

HW	Compute Power (TOPS)	Comparison to HW3
HW3	144 TOPS	Baseline (1x)
AI4 / HW4	300–500 TOPS	Approximately 2–3.5x more raw capable (With real-world FSD inference gains typically 3–5x)
AI5	2,000–5,000 TOPS (expected)	Approximately 14–35x more capable than HW3 (based on TOPS; production expected in 2026; Elon Musk describes it as 10–40x better than AI4 overall on FSD specific metrics)
Overall Comparison		AI4 has approximately 3 to 5 times the compute capability of HW3. AI5 is projected to vastly exceed this, enabling advanced unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi features, though exact real-world results are yet to be seen.

Can HW3 Do It?

This post generally assumes that an upgrade will be required for all HW2/2.5/3 vehicles to achieve full autonomy, but it's important to acknowledge that Tesla is still trying to squeeze as much as possible out of HW3. During the Q3 2025 Tesla Earnings Call, this issue was brought up directly. Here's the response from Tesla management about the future of this massive installed base.

The company's CFO explicitly stated that Tesla is "not abandoning HW3" and offered a clear assurance to concerned customers: "We will definitely take care of you guys." Adding, "My personal daily driver is a HW3 vehicle." Furthermore, Ashok Elluswamy, VP of AI SW, noted that a lighter-weight version of FSD V14, will be coming in 2026 for HW3. This V14 "Lite" will provide owners with many the latest advancements in the supervised FSD, albeit months behind the AI4 deployment.

So, whether or not Tesla finds a way to cram all of unsupervised FSD into HW3, those vehicle owners will have a path to a fully self-driving vehicle. Next, let's look at what those upgrade options may be.

Upgrade Options & Cost

When FSD is solved (Q4 2027 in this example), let's assume the cost for parts (e.g., AI4.5 or AI5 computer & cameras) and labor to retrofit a pre-AI4 vehicle is $2,500. For customers who've already paid for FSD, Tesla has an obligation to upgrade them at no cost. For owners who have not previously paid for FSD, this upgrade cost can be rolled into the FSD subscription cost, such as offering an upgrade if you commit to or pre-pay for 2 years of an FSD subscription. However, let's look at another (more likely) option.

Tesla has offered FSD transfers (off and on) for some time now (I've even used it). Currently, Tesla is no longer offering FSD transfers, but they could bring it back in a limited fashion to mitigate this issue. For example, if Tesla offered current pre-AI4 vehicle owners with FSD-for-life vehicles a $2000 "upgrade incentive" credit towards a new AI4+ vehicle, with FSD transfer offered as an early adopter award, many owners may take them up. They'd be trading in a vehicle that's between 4 and 11 years old, and they'd drive off (or should I say ride off) in a new vehicle with more range, faster charging, better cameras, and a new, far more powerful AI computer.

Above, we had the widdled the number of required retrofits below 200,000. Let's assume that 35% to 45% of pre-AI4 owners with FSD-for-life take Tesla up on this early adopter upgrade incentive program. That brings the required retrofit number down to ~120,000 vehicles.

This incentive would mean a lower margin on these vehicles for Tesla, but it would stop their service centers from being overrun with immediate retrofit requests, while being cheaper than performing retrofits.

Above, we initially estimated that there would be 225,000 vehicles requiring retrofits. If Tesla had to upgrade all of these at $2500 each, the total cost would be $562,500,000. However, Tesla can reduce this number by nearly 50% (down to $300 million) with time and smart trade-in trade-up incentives. This will be easy for Tesla to afford these upgrades and retrofits if they are the first company to offer for sale vehicles that allow you to sleep, work, or play while the vehicle drives you around, and FSD vehicle orders are pouring in.

FSD Adoption and Pricing Post-Solution

Once FSD is truly solved, the perceived value of Tesla's vehicles and FSD stack will fundamentally change. FSD will transform from an advanced driver-assistance system into a fully validated eyes-off, hands-off system. This will allow you to reclaim your time or just look out the window while your car chauffeurs you. Unsupervised FSD will also be a robotaxi enabler, allowing owners to put their cars into service to generate revenue. This certainty will dramatically increase both the adoption rate and the FSD sale price.

We can conjecture the following changes:

1. Price Increase: The subscription price of FSD (currently $99/month) will increase significantly. Unsupervised FSD is the "killer app" for cars, and the subscription price is likely to skyrocket. An initial price of $500 per month is a real possibility. It's even possible that, after general unsupervised FSD is solved, vehicles with FSD-for-life become highly sought after. 
2. Adoption Rate Increase: As soon as FSD is solved, the hesitancy surrounding the low adoption rate (9 to 12%) will evaporate. Customers will recognize FSD as a utility or an investment, pushing the take rate on all new vehicles to 50% in 2028 and eventually above 80% in following years. 
3. Retrofit Demand: Every Tesla built since October 2016 has the camera placements to allow retrofits to a new FSD system. The HW2, 2.5, and 3 fleet comprises ~4.45 million vehicles. This vast population of existing non-FSD-equipped vehicles would become the target of a massive upgrade demand. The potential FSD revenue from these post-upgrade vehicles would quickly eclipse the $300 million cost of "free" retrofits.

Crisitunity

Vehicles	Count
Native HW3	~4 million
HW2/2.5 upgraded to HW3	70,000
HW3 already with FSD	285,000
HW3 vehicles that Tesla will be obligated to retrofit Due to owners not upgrading to AI4+	125,000
HW2/2.5/3 FSD Potential Adoption	2,740,000

A naïve analysis might look at the 4+ million HW3 vehicles and see an obligation to upgrade these to FSD-ready on Tesla's dime. Millions of cars, costing thousands of dollars each, would be a huge liability for any company. However, the opposite is true. Only a small percentage (~9%) of these were purchased with FSD. Of those, many have (or will) upgrade to a vehicle with newer native HW and transfer FSD. This leaves the vast majority of the HW3 fleet (97%) with no obligation for free retrofits. And each of these vehicles in the 97% can be converted to a self-driving car if the owner subscribes to FSD at the higher 2028 price (which more than pays for the retrofit expense).

Conclusion

Our analysis of the pre-AI4 fleet highlights a moment of both challenge and opportunity for Tesla. The obligation to provide hardware retrofits to tens of thousands of customers who paid for FSD is a substantial financial undertaking, yet one to which Tesla management has committed. The explicit promise made during the Q3 2025 earnings call, "We will definitely take care of you guys," codifies the company's intent to fulfill the original FSD promise. The early adopters paid for the development of the technology, and there are multiple ways to reward them for this leap of faith without being financially ruinous.

Early adopters helped pay the cost and provided data for unsupervised FSD development, allowing Tesla entry into the vast autonomy market that this technology unlocks. This retrofit commitment, coupled with the development of the V14 "Lite" to retain HW3 owners in the ecosystem until a complete solution is developed, ensures that the HW3 fleet remains an active and valuable part of the effort. The hardware retrofit, while costly, will be swiftly offset by the massive increase in FSD adoption rate and the resultant multiplication of the FSD purchase price. This transforms the pre-AI4 legacy fleet from a liability into a highly valuable, revenue-generating asset that paves the way for a more sustainable future of shared autonomous mobility. The proactive communications from the company, especially regarding their promise not to abandon HW3, are essential for maintaining customer trust throughout this transition period.

Ω

Edit: Originally published November 5th, 2025. Updated Sept 2026 to note that FSD is no longer for sale; it is now subscription-only. Clarified the trade-in/trade-up program and other updates.

How To Charge a 2027 Chevy Bolt at Tesla Superchargers

The 2027 Chevrolet Bolt marks a welcome return for one of the most practical compact EVs ever built. It delivers an EPA-estimated 262 miles of range, DC fast charging up to 150 kW, and a starting price that keeps it accessible. Most importantly for road-trippers, this Bolt arrives with a native Tesla charge port, also known as NACS or SAE J3400. That single hardware change is a genuine advantage. Tesla operates the largest and most reliable EV charging network in the world, with tens of thousands of stalls that have set the standard for reliability for years.

Legacy automakers spent years promising better charging access while sticking with CCS connectors and fragmented networks, apps, and membership. GM finally moved past this by equipping the 2027 Bolt and the rest of its 2027 EV lineup with native NACS ports. This gives owners direct access to Superchargers without adapters. Pair that hardware with two new software features from GM, Energy Pass and Plug-and-Charge, and the friction of public charging drops dramatically.

Energy Pass: One App to Rule the Networks

Energy Pass lives inside the myChevrolet app that Bolt owners already use. It consolidates access to many major DC fast-charging networks so you no longer need to juggle separate logins, payment methods, and interfaces. At launch, it covers Tesla Superchargers, IONNA, and Electrify America, with ChargePoint and EVgo coming soon. Together, these networks cover roughly 70% of US DC fast chargers, plus many Level 2 stations.

Enrollment is free and requires only a one-time setup. You add a single payment method that works across the participating networks. The app then shows a live map of available stalls, complete with ratings, hours, pricing, connector types, and a clear indication of the stations that support Plug-and-Charge. You can also review live charging status, history, receipts, and occasional network-specific discounts. In short, Energy Pass treats the charging landscape more like a unified data network than a collection of incompatible silos.

Network	Energy Pass Access	Plug and Charge Status
Tesla Supercharger	At launch	Firmware V662.20 or later enables Plug-and-Charge at Tesla Superchargers
IONNA	At launch	Live
Electrify America	At launch	Supported via Energy Pass
ChargePoint	Coming soon	Planned August/Sept 2026
EVgo	Coming soon	Expected by end of year 2026 with early testing before then at select stations

Plug and Charge: The Zero-Friction Ideal

Plug-and-Charge takes the experience one step further. At compatible stations (like Tesla Superchargers), the vehicle authenticates itself to the charger using the plug-and-charge protocol (ISO 15118). You simply park, plug in the NACS connector, and charging begins. Payment is handled in the background through your Energy Pass account. No phone, QR codes, tapping apps, or credit cards are required at the stall.

This makes the Supercharger experience for Bolt owners as seamless as it is for Tesla drivers.

Configuring Plug and Charge for Tesla Superchargers

Here is the practical sequence that gets a 2027 Bolt ready for effortless Supercharger sessions.

• Confirm your software is current. Open the myChevrolet app or the vehicle’s center display and check for available over-the-air updates. Install any pending packages that mention Energy Pass, Plug and Charge, or Tesla Supercharger compatibility. The critical NACS Plug and Charge enablement arrives as a later-2026 OTA for native-port vehicles.
• Enroll in Energy Pass. Log into the myChevrolet app with your GM account. Navigate to the Energy Pass section, typically found under your profile initials or in the charging menu. Complete the free enrollment and add a payment method. This single account now covers Tesla Superchargers and the other supported networks.
• Enable Plug and Charge for the Tesla network. Return to the Energy Pass menu. Select “included networks”, locate Tesla Supercharger, and toggle the plug-and-charge feature on. The app lets you enable or disable the function per network, giving you control if you prefer to manually start charging at certain locations.
• Verify station compatibility in the map. Use the app’s charging map to search for nearby Superchargers. Compatible stalls will display a Plug and Charge indicator. Filter or note those locations so you know where the automatic handshake will work.
• Test the process. Pull up to a supported Supercharger stall, open the charge port, and insert the NACS connector. The vehicle and charger should negotiate authentication automatically. If you are prompted on the screen to select a stall number, then your configuration is not complete. Charging should begin without further input. You can monitor the progress in the myChevrolet app. The session and billing will appear under your Energy Pass history.

If the charging session does not start automatically, double-check that Plug and Charge is toggled on for Tesla and that your payment method is valid. The software for all of this is new, and occasional bugs still occur.

Practical Tips for Smooth Sessions

The 2027 Bolt’s native NACS port eliminates the need for a DC adapter at Superchargers, though GM still offers approved adapters for other scenarios. Precondition the battery when the navigation system routes you to a fast charger; the Bolt can sustain high rates more effectively with a warm pack. Supercharger stalls vary in maximum output, so the app’s live data helps you choose the best available post.

Because Energy Pass stores one payment method across networks, keep an eye on the transaction history for accurate cost tracking. Occasional network discounts, such as the 10 percent offered at certain IONNA sites for Energy Pass users, appear automatically when available.

Charging Down The Road

The combination of a native NACS port, Energy Pass, and Plug and Charge moves GM closer to the frictionless experience Tesla has offered for years. For the 2027 Bolt owner, charging at a Supercharger no longer requires juggling apps or adapters. You enroll once, enable the feature; after that, simply plug in. That is the pragmatic progress the EV transition needs: fewer hassles, greater ease of use, and a charging network that finally feels like a coherent system rather than a patchwork of competing networks.

As more 2027 GM models adopt the same NACS hardware and as the Plug and Charge rollout expands, the advantage compounds. The network of chargers starts to behave more like a reliable system with redundancy. It becomes something that works for drivers who just want to arrive, plug in, and get on with their day; that is progress toward our future free from fossil fuels.

Cybercab: The day the steering wheel went away

The Twilight of the Steering Wheel

Before the steering wheel became the standard method for directing a vehicle, early motor carriages relied on simple levers known as tillers. As vehicles became faster, heavier, and more complex in the early 1900s, circular steering wheels and pedals replaced tillers to provide drivers with mechanical leverage. Automotive progress has repeatedly advanced by improving the human-to-machine interface. The progress continued with power steering; then the clutch went away, eliminating the difficult-to-learn clutch-gas feathering maneuver; now the next step in this progression has arrived. After more than a century as the primary human interface, the steering wheel is being replaced by sensor suites, camera vision, and artificial intelligence.

Clutches, Combustion, and Control Clearance

The decline of driver-operated controls follows an established pattern of technological displacement; the manual clutch spent decades in steady retreat, an elimination accelerated by single-speed electric drivetrains that offer instant torque, smooth operation, and zero gear shifting.

Internal combustion engines (ICE) entered their own systemic decline after reaching global peak demand in 2017; gas vehicles dominated personal transport for over a century, but battery electric platforms proved to have performance and economic advantages. Just as electric motors rendered multi-speed gearboxes and clutches obsolete, autonomous driving hardware is removing physical steering assemblies entirely.

From Tillers to Unsupervised Networks

Steering wheel design underwent continuous refinement over twelve decades, expanding from rigid wooden spokes to padded rims filled with airbags, thumb switches, and media controls. The 2020s brought transitional shapes like yokes and squircles, clearing sightlines for digital displays while preparing drivers for automated steering.

via @niccruzpatane on X

The launch of the Tesla Cybercab in 2026 marks the official milestone moment; as the first high-volume production vehicle built without a steering wheel, pedals, or rear window, it completes the transition that began when steering wheels replaced tillers. Physical linkages, steering columns, and rack-and-pinion assemblies yield to high-definition cameras, neural networks, and custom silicon.

Mechanical Feature	Peak Dominance Era	Primary Replacement	Current Market Status
Manual Transmission / Clutch	1920s to 1990s	Single-Speed EV Drivetrain	Niche / Collector Status
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)	1910s to 2030s	Battery Electric Drivetrain	Majority Share; Structural Decline
Steering Wheels & Pedals	1900s to 2030s	Sensors, Vision, and AI Networks	Beginning Decline Today

Compute Capabilities and Cabin Real Estate

Removing the steering wheel requires complete trust in underlying compute architectures; early driver-assistance platforms relied on basic radar units and rule-based software, but modern autonomous fleets rely on vision neural networks operating on dedicated hardware stacks.

Tesla vehicles currently operate on AI4 hardware delivering 150 TOPS. AI5 promises to deliver over 2,000 TOPS, enabling processing speeds far exceeding human reflexes, with cameras processing all weather road conditions in real time, allowing unsupervised fleets to navigate complex traffic and conditions safely.

Beyond driving mechanics, steering-wheel-less vehicles alter interior vehicle design and economics; eliminating driver controls saves hundreds of dollars per vehicle in physical hardware, simplifies cabin assembly, and expands interior passenger space. Autonomous robotaxis increase overall asset utilization by moving passengers during peak hours and acting as dynamic urban infrastructure nodes when parked.

Charged Conclusions

The circular wheel replaced the tiller to give human drivers control over early mechanical carriages; today, advanced sensors and artificial intelligence remove the need for human control altogether. This grants the passengers the ability to do other things like watch a movie or play games rather than white-knuckling the wheel and getting upset with other drivers. This also means that people without the ability to drive now have more mobility options. There will be fewer collisions and roadway deaths. This moves personal transportation into its next clean, automated chapter.

As driverless fleets expand across urban centers, road safety will increase, transportation costs will drop, and cities will reclaim parking spaces for people; the elimination of the steering wheel is an essential step toward optimizing transport efficiency and accelerating our transition toward a future free from fossil fuels.

How Executive Order 14420 Impacts EVs, Storage, and Electric Rates

Protectionism Meets the Grid: How Executive Order 14420 Impacts EVs, Storage, and Electric Rates

The federal government officially declared a national emergency under Executive Order 14420 to protect the bulk power system from foreign security vulnerabilities. By restricting foreign-produced grid equipment, control firmware, and digital remote-access software linked to foreign entities, the order aims to shield transmission infrastructure from potential sabotage. However, adding supply chain friction across critical hardware will create deployment bottlenecks across the energy sector.

DC Fast Charging Infrastructure

Because transportation electrification is our primary focus at Cars With Cords, the immediate question is how this impacts EVs, and the answer is that it hits public fast charging. Megawatt-scale charging hubs, such as Tesla Supercharger stations, do not exist in a vacuum. They depend on high-voltage step-up transformers, specialized switchgear, and software to interface directly with the grid. Adding requirements for strict cybersecurity audits of remote-control firmware and restrictions on foreign balance-of-plant hardware will extend lead times for opening new fast-charging locations, temporarily slowing infrastructure deployment. This infrastructure certainly needs to be secure, but the impacts should be noted.

Industrial Storage, Residential ESS, and Solar Inverters

Industrial-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS), such as Tesla Megapacks, face similar headwinds. These massive installations rely on global supply chains for battery cells, battery management software, and high-voltage grid tie-in components. Vetting control firmware and re-sourcing switchgear will push back project commissioning dates.

For residential energy storage systems (ESS) like the Tesla Powerwall, the direct impact is milder because home batteries connect to low-voltage distribution networks rather than bulk transmission lines. However, utility-scale solar PV inverters face heavy scrutiny. Because grid-tied inverters rely on digital microprocessors, continuous firmware updates, and remote management protocols, foreign-sourced inverter hardware must undergo rigorous compliance checks to avoid import or installation bans.

Fossil Gas Turbines and the Carbon Silver Lining

Legacy utilities relying on fossil gas turbines (often deceptively marketed as "natural gas") will also feel the pinch. Turbine control systems, programmable logic controllers, and heavy step-up transformers require the exact same foreign-vendor clearance. If there is a silver lining for clean-energy advocates, it is that administrative friction and component delays will slow down the buildout of new fossil gas peaker plants, putting a temporary brake on fresh carbon dioxide emissions.

Upward Pressure on Energy Prices

The broader economic outcome is clear: electricity rates will rise. Re-sourcing hardware components, performing extensive software audits, and navigating delayed interconnections significantly increase capital expenditure for utility providers and project developers. Whether power is generated from clean solar arrays or burning fossil fuels, legacy utilities will inevitably pass these compliance and equipment costs directly onto consumers. Until domestic supply chains scale, regulatory protectionism will make powering our homes and charging our electric vehicles more expensive across the board.

Sector / Asset	Primary Restriction Vector	Expected Impact & Lead-Time Result
DC Fast Charging Hubs	Transmission tie-in hardware, step-up transformers, and remote management software.	Delays in opening new high-voltage stations due to firmware audits and balance-of-plant shortages.
Utility-Scale BESS (Megapacks)	Foreign battery cells, Battery Management Systems (BMS), and high-voltage grid interfaces.	Extended commissioning timelines and re-sourcing bottlenecks for foreign control components.
Solar PV Inverters	Digital microprocessors, continuous firmware updates, and remote access protocols.	Heavy cybersecurity vetting with potential import bans or compulsory hardware replacement.
Fossil Gas Peaker Plants	Turbine control systems, PLCs, and heavy step-up transformers.	Slowed deployment of new fossil gas generation, creation of temporary carbon caps, and increased compliance costs.

Don't Be The Kodak of Energy

The U.S. of A. has been a cradle of innovation since its beginning, from the Wright brothers' first flight to the Lunar landing that united a watching world. Yet today, as the nation that sparked the digital revolution grapples with its energy future, a troubling pattern emerges. The US clings to the fossil fuel frameworks of the 1900s, much like Kodak held fast to film long after inventing the digital camera. This reluctance to embrace renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs) risks ceding global leadership to competitors. By investing boldly in clean power and efficient transport, the US can reclaim its pioneering spirit, secure economic vitality, and preserve the natural bounty of innovation for generations to come. Or it can cling to the energy systems of yesteryear and fade into the background. 

The Kodak Parallel in American Energy

Consider Kodak's fate in the late 20th century. The company dominated photography with its film empire, generating billions in revenue. Engineers at Kodak developed the first digital camera in 1975, a breakthrough that promised portability and instant results. Instead of embracing this innovation, Kodak's executives dismissed digital as a threat, fearing it would erode their core business. Other companies saw the potential and delivered the cameras consumers were demanding. By 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy, while rivals like Canon and Sony built empires on the technology Kodak birthed.

This story mirrors the US energy sector's trajectory. The nation pioneered much of the modern grid in the early 1900s, harnessing coal and oil to fuel industrial might. Hydropower dams like Hoover symbolized American ingenuity, powering cities and factories. Yet as solar panels and wind turbines emerged from US labs in the mid-20th century, much like Kodak, US policy and industry inertia have favored entrenched interests. Today, the US generates only 23% of its electricity from renewables, per International Energy Agency data. Natural gas and coal still claim over half, locking in vulnerabilities to price swings and supply disruptions. This path echoes Kodak's error of ignoring and (unsuccessfully) suppressing homegrown innovations because the status quo is profitable.

The Global Surge in Renewables and EVs

While the US hesitates, other nations accelerate. China, Europe, and even emerging markets pour resources into renewables and EVs, capturing market dominance and technological edges. In 2024, renewables overtook coal as the world's top electricity source, driven by solar and wind expansions. China alone hosts 47% of global installed solar and wind capacity, nearly double the combined total of the US and Europe. This investment yields results: China's solar and wind now supply 18% of its electricity, up from 9% in 2020.

EVs tell a starker tale. Global sales hit 17 million units in 2024, a record surge. China leads decisively, with EVs comprising 51% of new car sales, accounting for 66% of worldwide volume. Europe follows at about 20% market share, bolstered by aggressive incentives and charging networks. The US lags at 8.1%, despite domestic giants like Tesla.

The table below highlights these disparities:

Region	Renewable Share in Electricity Generation (2024)	EV Market Share of New Car Sales (2024)
US	23%	8.1%
China	31% (including hydro)	51%
Europe	42%	20%

Sources: International Energy Agency; Rho Motion; Ember Climate.

These figures underscore a shift. China added more renewable capacity in 2024 than the rest of the world combined, creating millions of jobs and slashing energy import bills. Europe, through unified policies, cut emissions while boosting GDP via clean tech exports worth $100 billion annually. The US, by contrast, risks isolation in a market projected to reach $2 trillion in EV value by 2035.

The Economic and Strategic Costs of Stagnation

The price of this lag extends beyond symbols. Fossil dependence exposes the US to geopolitical risks, as seen in recent oil shocks that inflated household costs by $500 per year on average. Renewables offer stability: wind and solar costs dropped 85% and 70% since 2010, making them cheaper than new coal plants. Yet US deployment crawls, hampered by regulatory hurdles and subsidy gaps.

Economically, the toll mounts. China dominates battery supply chains, controlling 80% of global production and undercutting US manufacturers. This erodes American competitiveness; a single gigafactory in Nevada employs thousands, but scaled nationally, renewables could add 5 million jobs by 2030, per World Resources Institute estimates. EVs amplify this: domestic production could generate $300 billion in annual revenue, yet tariffs and inconsistent policies drive investment abroad. Strategically, falling behind weakens national security. Allies in Europe advance toward energy independence, while adversaries exploit US vulnerabilities.

Patriotism demands action. The land of the free thrives when it leads, not follows. By streamlining permits and expanding tax credits, the US can unleash private sector dynamism, much as it did with semiconductors.

Conclusion

The US stands at a crossroads, Kodak's shadow a cautionary tale. The 1900s energy model served its era, powering victory in world wars and postwar booms. But clinging to it now dims the beacon of progress. Renewables and EVs are not mere alternatives; they are the next frontier of American exceptionalism, harnessing sun, wind, and innovation to fuel a resilient economy and safeguard our rivers, forests, and air.

Let us rally as one nation, from Capitol Hill to heartland farms. Invest in the technologies we invented. Champion policies that reward builders and dreamers. In doing so, the US will not only catch up but surge ahead, ensuring our children's inheritance is one of abundance, not austerity. The stars and stripes wave highest when ingenuity lights the way.